The brain is not sufficient for consciousness

miknik5 · Jul 17, 2016

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do that in the future...

Thank you...
And as well, I would also appreciate it if you don't resort to personal opinions, suggestions, notions, "insight" into others as if what you say is true and should hold as truth of that person.

It is better to just speak for yourself...

miknik5 · Jul 17, 2016

Now, can we start again?

I understand scientifically, you are an EXPERT...you know your "stuff"..

But don't think that those who are called of GOD are somehow delusional and don't know what they so strongly profess.

It is rather the opposite...
Because they know, they will and do strongly profess...knowing that not all men will believe and knowing that GOD has to do the work of opening the inner "eyes and ears" of the heart and mind of the man for him to even see THE TRUTH of GOD, they still do what they were called to do..."GO" in the hope that some men might hear THE TRUTH and believe and be saved.

Yes, be saved...

I want to go back to 2thesselonians 2 if you would allow me...
I want to talk about the Bible here and the truth that what you are discussing, the mind, is tied to biblical truths as well.

But, if it is too much for you and it is causing you to be upset, I can't...and I won't...

So, if you would like me to leave this discussion, let me know...and I will bow out...

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 17, 2016

miknik5 said:
Please do not take a portion of my post out of context to somehow support or imply something outside of what was said

Likewise

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 17, 2016

miknik5 said:
he can suggest (his own theory) that there isn't a GOD...but it doesn't change, just because he can't test his own theory that there is a GOD...

The reason you "couldn't quite follow" the above comment made by me was because you truncated my post...here is the full of what was said...
↑

Unfortunately your link was to a previous post of mine; it might be better just to explain what you meant.

Incidentally, why the red text? it doesn't help readability.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 17, 2016

miknik5 said:
Now, can we start again?

Is this a question for me?

I want to talk about the Bible here and the truth that what you are discussing, the mind, is tied to biblical truths as well.

But, if it is too much for you and it is causing you to be upset, I can't...and I won't...

So, if you would like me to leave this discussion, let me know...and I will bow out...

If you think you have a valid argument, go for it

miknik5 · Jul 17, 2016

When are "valid arguments" won by dishonest measures ?

ToddNotTodd · Jul 17, 2016

paul becke said:
If you are serious about learning the truth, I recommend you delve into the explanations by the Christian apologists, William Craig and John Lennox, two extraordinarily well-qualified, Christian apologists.

Craig is either an idiot or a charlatan. I tend to go back and forth on which it might be.

Chany · Jul 17, 2016

Still not seeing the evidence for the insufficiency of the brain for consciousness. I thought that there were cases like this before.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 18, 2016

miknik5 said:
When are "valid arguments" won by dishonest measures ?

I'm not sure how that would work for a philosophical argument - ideally one agrees the premises in advance, and if the premises are disputed, then the argument doesn't get started. For deductive argument, if the argument is valid and the premises true (or agreed), then the conclusion necessarily follows; i.e. the argument is sound. What did you have in mind?

miknik5 · Jul 18, 2016

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I'm not sure how that would work for a philosophical argument - ideally one agrees the premises in advance, and if the premises are disputed, then the argument doesn't get started. For deductive argument, if the argument is valid and the premises true (or agreed), then the conclusion necessarily follows; i.e. the argument is sound. What did you have in mind?

I'm not sure how truncating someone's "argument" to suggest something other than what was actually said, personal attacks (as if this will somehow support their "arguments") and now little emoji faces work philosophically, period.

If anything it kind of invalidates the person as an honest and mature debator

And to now give instructions on what is philosophically sound and not follow these principles will not be lost on those to whom these unprincipled things are done to

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 18, 2016

miknik5 said:
I'm not sure how truncating someone's "argument" to suggest something other than what was actually said, personal attacks (as if this will somehow support their "arguments") and now little emoji faces work philosophically, period.

If anything it kind of invalidates the person as an honest and mature debator...

OK, I see, you're directing this at me specifically. Well, I apologise if any of my posts came across that way, it wasn't my intention; I try to play with a straight bat, but I'm only human.

If you point me to any posts, or quote what I said, that you perceived as a personal attack, I'll explain what I meant or apologise as appropriate. As I understand it, personal attacks break the forum rules, so you can report the offending posts for that.

If you show me where or how I've truncated your argument in a way that changes its meaning, I'll apologise specifically and try to respond to it as you intended it to be.

I hope you find that reasonable.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 18, 2016

miknik5 said:
I'm not sure how truncating someone's "argument" to suggest something other than what was actually said...

OK; I went back to look at the post where you said I didn't follow your argument because I'd truncated it, and where you pasted your original post in red text (#120), and I still can't see what you meant by that last part. If you feel it's important, perhaps you'd like to rephrase it or explain what you meant, and I'll respond.

miknik5 · Jul 18, 2016

miknik}TRUNCATED:... he can suggest (his own theory) that there isn't a GOD...but it doesn't change said:
I don't quite follow this - he seems to have a theory both that there isn't a God and that there is...

Your post to my TRUNCATED post tried to portray me as someone speaking out of two sides of my mouth.

That was the FIRST dishonest measure

miknik5 · Jul 18, 2016

↑
... your belief (or disbelief) will not change The TRUTH that there is GOD who reveals (or does not reveal) HIMSELF to whom He chooses

frumious said:
So you keep saying. But the truth of an assertion isn't dependent on repetition (or all-caps shouting).

Off topic personal attack and personal suggestion of what another is doing
I had to explain to you (had you really taken the time to look you would have seen that) that the caps are used in reverence to GODLY TRUTHS

That was the SECOND dishonest measure

miknik5 · Jul 18, 2016

frumious said:
If you think you have a valid argument, go for it

Using winking, sarcastic emojis

The THIRD dishonest measure

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 18, 2016

miknik5 said:
Your post to my TRUNCATED post tried to portray me as someone speaking out of two sides of my mouth.

I was simply saying that I didn't follow what you'd written, because the part I quoted appeared to be contradictory. Like I said, even when I look at the full context, the whole post, I still don't understand what you're getting at there.

I wasn't portraying you as 'someone speaking out of two sides of your mouth', I was hoping you would clarify or explain what you meant.

That was the FIRST dishonest measure

I'm sorry you interpreted it like that; it was intended as a request for clarification or explanation.

miknik5 · Jul 18, 2016

I'm sorry you missed my clarification that God is Sovereign and if a man does not believe That there is a God it will not change the Truth that He indeed is
You want to base "truth" on physical things that can be tested and that is the only way for a man to be able to study and make sense out of his world and himself in relation to the world and others.

These are studies, man made schools of thoughts to explain what we believe to others

But you can't put God in a box. because He is not limited to any man telling Him that GOD must fit and be molded to a mans understanding and ability to prove GOD is in order for GOD to BE

Sorry.
Again whether a man believes or does not believe will not change the TRUTH that God is and He reveals Himself to those whom He chooses to reveal Himself

A man will believe or he won't believe

This has been the ongoing distinction and division between mankind from generation to generation of men , members of ONE SPECIES

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 18, 2016

miknik5 said:
... your belief (or disbelief) will not change The TRUTH that there is GOD who reveals (or does not reveal) HIMSELF to whom He chooses

Click to expand...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

So you keep saying. But the truth of an assertion isn't dependent on repetition (or all-caps shouting).

Click to expand...

Off topic personal attack and personal suggestion of what another is doing
I had to explain to you (had you really taken the time to look you would have seen that) that the caps are used in reverence to GODLY TRUTHS

I'm sorry you interpreted it as a personal attack. I was saying that you had repeated the 'truth of God' assertion and repeating it doesn't make it true, which as far as I can tell, is true. And, as I pointed out, all-caps is an established online code for shouting. If you use all-caps for godly truths, it means you're shouting those godly truths, whether that's what you intend or not.

That was the SECOND dishonest measure

Not guilty.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 18, 2016

miknik5 said:
Using winking, sarcastic emojis

The winking emoji conveys humour, it generally means I'm joking, or I'm not being serious, or don't take this seriously. The idea is usually to lighten the mood. I'm sorry you perceived it as sarcastic.

The THIRD dishonest measure

Not guilty.

But if you really think that anything I've posted was intended as a character attack, or infringed the rules in any way, I urge you to report those posts.

miknik5 · Jul 18, 2016

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
The winking emoji conveys humour, it generally means I'm joking, or I'm not being serious, or don't take this seriously. The idea is usually to lighten the mood. I'm sorry you perceived it as sarcastic.
Not guilty.

But if you really think that anything I've posted was intended as a character attack, or infringed the rules in any way, I urge you to report those posts.

i think you need to read the rules. I think I remember clearly hearing that these little emojis are actually against the rules of this forum

But you are allowed to use them because?

The brain is not sufficient for consciousness

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Iconoclast

Uncertain Absurdist

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency